From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1752695AbcERLGJ (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Wed, 18 May 2016 07:06:09 -0400
Received: from merlin.infradead.org ([205.233.59.134]:37902 "EHLO
	merlin.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750795AbcERLGH (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 18 May 2016 07:06:07 -0400
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 13:05:55 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>, Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@hpe.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>, Jason Low <jason.low2@hp.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Scott J Norton <scott.norton@hpe.com>,
        Douglas Hatch <doug.hatch@hpe.com>, kcc@google.com, dvyukov@google.com,
        dhowells@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] locking/rwsem: Add reader-owned state to the owner
 field
Message-ID: <20160518110555.GE3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <1462580424-40333-1-git-send-email-Waiman.Long@hpe.com>
 <5733AC64.6020306@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160513150749.GT3192@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <573615AD.60300@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160516110948.GM3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20160516121719.GC3528@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <5739D686.302@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160516175041.GR3193@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <573B6DC8.2030902@hurleysoftware.com>
 <20160517194607.GO3528@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20160517194607.GO3528@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2012-12-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 12:46:07PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Actually, if you show a case where this makes a visible system-wide
> difference, you could create a set of primitives for #1 below.  Have
> a compiler version check, and if it is an old compiler, map them to
> READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE(), otherwise as follows, though preferably
> with better names:
> 
> #define READ_NOTEAR(x) __atomic_load_n(&(x), __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
> #define WRITE_NOTEAR(x, v) __atomic_store_n(&(x), (v), __ATOMIC_RELAXED)
> 
> The ambiguity between "no tear" and "not ear" should help motivate a
> better choice of name.

Alternatively, could we try and talk to our GCC friends to make sure GCC
doesn't tear loads/stores irrespective of what the C language spec
allows?